[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 146 (Saturday, October 8, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 8, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                 ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE 103d CONGRESS.

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, and Members of the Senate, as the 103d 
Congress draws to a close, attention to short-term controversies and 
conflicts overshadows its substantial record of accomplishment. That is 
a common, if unfortunate, reality. Conflict is more exciting than 
cooperation, so immediate news takes precedence over enduring 
achievement.
  But service in the Congress requires that we look to the longer view, 
to the future of our country and the future well-being of American 
families. The 103d Congress has done this, I believe, effectively. We 
have produced a significant change in direction to respond to the 
challenges of a very different world.
  Change is never easy or achieved without resistance and opposition. 
Those comfortable with the status quo naturally seek to preserve their 
advantages. Change takes courage and the willingness to risk failure. 
Nothing risked, nothing gained is a fact of human experience, at the 
individual level and at the national level.
  The 103d Congress reflects that. We had some failures but we also had 
significant successes.
  In time and perspective, President Clinton will get the credit he has 
earned for his leadership, his courage to face change, and the vision 
of a revived American spirit that his efforts will help produce.
  President Clinton took office with a mandate to change the direction 
of our nation's economy. The deficit reduction and economic growth plan 
enacted last year has done that. It is by far the most important action 
the majority in Congress took.
  That action has produced real change: After more than a decade of 
skyrocketing federal deficits, for the first time in 50 years, the 
federal budget deficit will decline for 3 years in a row.
  President Clinton was elected to help bring focus and direction to 
the government's priorities, and the precondition for achieving that 
was first to get our economic house in order. The President's budget 
achieved that result.
  America today has a robust economy and a falling unemployment rate. 
In the past 21 months, 4.6 million jobs have been created, 92 percent 
of them in the private sector. That is more jobs created than in the 
prior 5 years of Republican administrations put together. In just the 
first 9 months of this year, from January through September of 1994, 
2\1/2\ million jobs were created in the United States--more jobs than 
were created in the entire 4 years of the Bush administration.
  I ask Americans to consider that fact. In just 9 months this year, 
more jobs were created than in the entire 4 years of the Bush 
administration. The gross domestic product has grown at an annual rate 
of 3.67 percent, the highest since Presidents Kennedy and Johnson were 
in office, almost 30 years ago.
  Inflation remains low, now at an annual rate of 2.74 percent, the 
best performance since the early sixties. That means that the working 
American's paycheck is not being eroded by higher prices.
  A significant accomplishment in the President's economic plan is the 
broader and much more valuable earned income tax credit. It directly 
rewards work by giving the hardest working and lowest paid Americans 
the money to feed and shelter their families, enabling them to rise 
above the poverty level. Nearly 20 million American families have been 
rewarded for their work by this credit. It is a real attack on the 
welfare problem--not a rhetorical attack, a real attack.
  With time in perspective, I think this action of the 103d Congress 
will ultimately be judged to have set the Nation on a new and better 
economic course.
  A significant element of that accomplishment is the work this 
Congress has done and will do on trade. The passage of the North 
American Free Trade Agreement last November, and the forthcoming 
passage of the GATT implementing agreement are both among the most 
important actions we can take for our Nation's future prosperity. Now 
for the rest of this decade and into the next century, leadership in 
world affairs by the United States will increasingly be in the area of 
international economics. We must be strong militarily, and there is a 
long history that a strong military and influence in the world requires 
a strong economy.
  America benefits from trade among nations because when we have access 
to the markets of other countries, American exports can attract buyers 
around the world. The GATT agreement will be the largest tax cut in 
this century. It will cut tariffs reciprocally, freeing up money around 
the world for economic expansion. The primary beneficiaries will be 
American workers.
  This Congress began taking on the task of domestic priorities that 
have too long been neglected.
  With the passage of a balanced, comprehensive, and fully funded crime 
bill, we took the first step to restore security to American life. The 
crime bill that passed this year provides for more police, more 
prisons, and more and better crime prevention programs.
  It is cheaper to place young people on the path to a law-abiding life 
than it is to jail them after they have already gone wrong. The crime 
bill will give our States and cities the help they need to expand 
successful programs of crime prevention and drug treatment to keep 
young citizens from becoming young criminals.
  The prison funds will give our States the money they need to operate 
prisons already built, will provide funds for additional prison bed 
construction, and will ask the States to make sure that violent 
criminals serve their sentences fully.
  The police funding will finance assistance to States and cities to 
put another 100,000 police on our streets to patrol and work with 
neighborhoods and to turn around the pervasive fear that permits thugs 
and criminals to terrorize too many neighborhoods.
  Two other steps we took in this direction deserve our attention. The 
Brady bill is now the Brady law. In its first 100 days of operation 
nationwide, 57,332 people who were legally ineligible to purchase 
handguns were prevented from doing so by the operation of this law.
  The assault weapons ban in this year's crime bill will not infringe 
on the rights of law-abiding sportsmen or citizens, but it will begin 
to curb the arms race in our inner cities. When our police are 
outgunned by young hoodlums, Americans demand that we take action. This 
Congress listened and acted.
  There is no more important building block for America's future than 
the education and training our children get to meet the challenges of 
the global economy in the 21st century.
  The education initiatives enacted during this Congress are vitally 
important to our Nation's future. Millions of Americans will benefit, 
from children in Head Start to those entering the work force or 
pursuing a college degree. Because most of these initiatives passed 
with broad bipartisan support, they did not receive the attention that 
I believe they deserve.
  We reauthorized the Head Start Program, which helps children start 
school ready to learn, and we expanded it for younger children at 
critical ages of development.
  The Goals 2000: Educate America Act helps local schools implement 
their own school reform programs and encourages the development of 
voluntary standards.
  The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, approved just this week, 
puts control of Federal education aid into the hands of teachers, 
parents, and administrators, who can best determine how to use it most 
effectively.
  The School-to-Work Opportunities Act helps students make the 
transition from high school to the workplace through the support of 
apprenticeship programs and public-private partnerships with business.
  We passed the Student Loan Reform Act, which expands the student loan 
program, putting higher education and the opportunities it can bring 
into the reach of millions of Americans.
  This Congress passed one of President Clinton's highest priorities, 
the National Community Service Program, a domestic Peace Corps that 
builds on America's long tradition of individual service to others. 
Nationwide, some 20,000 individuals are expected to participate in 
community service projects. In exchange for their service, they can 
earn up to $9,500 to help pay for college or job training.
  In my home State of Maine, new AmeriCorps members have begun work on 
projects such as building recreational trails in State parks, operating 
a recycling center, and helping troubled young people. These and other 
community service projects throughout the country will teach 
participants valuable trade skills, good work habits, and lessons in 
leadership and civic responsibility. They will learn firsthand how 
getting involved can make a difference in their lives and the lives of 
others and their communities.
  Early in the 103rd Congress, we passed the Family and Medical Leave 
Act, so that people will not have to choose between their jobs and 
their families health. The National Voter Registration Act, known as 
the ``motor-voter'' bill, will make it easier for working men and women 
to register to vote. These initiatives affect millions of Americans 
from all walks of life.
  Last year, we reformed the Hatch Act so that millions of Federal 
workers can now participate more fully in the political process.
  A look around the globe reveals that the United States' relations 
with its most important partners have never been better. President 
Clinton deserves most of the credit for this.
  He has managed our relationships with Russia, with Japan, and the 
countries of Western Europe soundly in a time of uncertainty and the 
social and economic turbulence that followed in the wake of the 
collapse of communism.
  Longstanding conflicts in areas like Northern Ireland, South Africa, 
and the Middle East, which for decades had seemed intractable, are now 
on the path to resolution.
  The end of the bipolar contest between the free world and the former 
Communist world has not produced a world without tribal conflict or 
political evil. They remain. Indeed, shorn of that defining contest, 
relations among former allies as well as adversaries are going through 
a period of change and reevaluation. It is bound to be a confused and 
unsettling period.
  The past year was not as productive as many of us hoped it would be. 
But I would be much more disappointed with myself and my Democratic 
colleagues if we had not at least made the effort. Those who seek 
reform and change risk failure. But it is far better to fail in trying 
than not to even make the attempt.
  Both the House and Senate passed substantive campaign finance reform 
bills, but we were unable to overcome the Republican filibuster in the 
Senate which blocked final consideration of a bill.
  The way the congressional campaigns are financed must be changed. 
They are too long and too expensive. True campaign finance reform will 
contain spending limits and help to even the playing field so that 
challengers will no longer be hopelessly outspent by incumbents. For 
the good of our Nation and for the good of Congress I hope substantive 
campaign finance reform legislation will be enacted in the next 
Congress.
  I regret that Republican obstruction also prevented Senate passage of 
many other reform efforts. We are unable to complete action on a 
congressional compliance bill which would have brought congressional 
employees under the same employment protection as private sector 
workers.
  The American people believe that Members of Congress are more 
responsive to moneyed special interests than to ordinary citizens. The 
lobbying disclosure and gift ban legislation, which was killed by a 
Republican filibuster after being passed with 95 votes in its favor, 
would have required registration and disclosure and would have limited 
the gifts of travel and entertainment to Members which feed the public 
perception that Congress is out of touch with ordinary working people.
  My greatest legislative disappointment is the failure to pass 
comprehensive health care reform. It is an issue on which I have worked 
since I came to the Senate nearly 15 years ago and about which I care 
deeply. More importantly, it is an issue that affects the daily lives 
of every single American.
  The President deserves enormous credit for making health care reform 
a high priority. Many Members of Congress, mostly Democrats and some 
courageous Republicans, devoted thousands of hours to develop serious 
health care reform proposals.
  Those who opposed health care reform may have avoided casting votes 
this year, but they will be unable to avoid the reality of the growing 
health care crisis in our country. It is a crisis of cost and a crisis 
of justice. I can say with certainty that major health care reform will 
someday happen; it must happen.
  The budget numbers alone are striking: Today, Federal spending on 
health care through Medicare and Medicaid is less than half of the 
discretionary budget. By the year 2004, 10 years from now, spending on 
Medicare and Medicaid will exceed all discretionary spending. Let me 
repeat that. In the year 2004, we will spend more money on Medicare and 
Medicaid than on every other domestic discretionary program--defense, 
all international programs, all defense programs combined.
  Unlike the cycles of the national economy, there is no self-
correcting mechanism to reverse escalating health care costs. There 
must be a coherent national framework to help contain health care 
costs, to ensure that health insurance is affordable and is there when 
it is needed.
  I repeat what I have said literally hundreds of times before: I 
believe that in a democratic society, the right to good health care is 
a fundamental right of every citizen. I regret that I was unable to see 
that right secured during my tenure in the U.S. Senate. I hope and 
believe that it will happen soon.
  The disappointments of recent months are real, but the 
accomplishments of the 103d Congress outweigh them. We may have a 
substantial difference in the economic direction for the better--more 
jobs, lower inflation, declining deficits--than the country has seen in 
a dozen years.
  We have begun to address the issues of combining a sound family life 
with the demands of the workplace. We have significantly broadened the 
ability of all Americans to register and vote. And we took on the task 
of the future: improving our education system so that our children will 
be prepared for the 21st century.
  Long after the 103d Congress has ended, the laws enacted in that 
Congress will have a positive effect on the lives of Americans. That is 
our legacy, and I take pride in it.
  Mr. President, that was my prepared statement. I had intended to make 
no further statements, but I feel I have no choice but to respond to 
some of the comments made earlier with respect to President Clinton and 
some of the measures which were before the Senate. I will attempt to do 
so as briefly and as factually as I can because I think it is necessary 
that the record be set straight. I do not intend to here redebate all 
of the bills and issues which were before this Congress, but I think 
some of the statements made require a response.
  First, the crime bill. Once again we heard the argument made by our 
Republican colleagues that they opposed the crime bill in the end 
because there was too much spending in it. Everyone should understand 
that when the crime bill was before the Senate, it passed by a vote of 
95 to 4; 42 of the 44 Republican Senators voted for it.
  Then the bill went to conference and came back to the Senate for 
final action, and our Republican colleagues attempted to defeat that 
measure. And the argument they used and the argument used again here 
today was that it was changed in conference and there was too much 
money in it.
  Mr. President, that is not the reason, and it can be demonstrated 
that that is not the reason by simply looking at the facts. The bill 
which passed the Senate and which was supported by 42 of the 44 
Republican Senators was a 5-year bill. The bill which came back to the 
Senate after conference and which Republican Senators opposed was a 6-
year bill. So therefore, naturally, a 6-year bill has a higher total 
spending than a 5-year bill. But if you look at the years that are 
common to both bills, the amount of money in each of those years was 
higher in the bill which the Republican Senators voted for than in the 
conference report which they voted against.
  I repeat that. The bill they voted for had more money in every year 
common to both the bill and the conference report than in the 
conference report which they opposed. So it is obvious it was not the 
money. It could not have been the money, because they voted for a bill 
with more money in each of the years common to both the bill and the 
conference report.
  What changed, of course, was the political climate and the simple 
desire to oppose a bill which they actually voted for so as to deny 
President Clinton any political benefit at all.
  Now, Mr. President, the same thing happened on the bill to reform 
lobbying disclosure and gifts to Senators. That bill passed the Senate 
95 to 2 and 95 to 4 in two separate parts.
  And, once again, almost every single one of the Republican Senators 
voted for the bill.
  It then went to conference and was changed. When it came back, they 
said, ``We're going to oppose this because of the changes.''
  Well, then, Mr. President, to call that bluff, we proposed to take 
out the changes and presented to the Senate the same bill which they 
had voted for by a margin of 95 to 2, and they killed that bill.
  So it is obvious, once again, it was not the changes that caused them 
to kill a bill which they have supported. It was, rather, the 
difference in the political climate and a desire not to pass any bills 
that might in some way give credit to President Clinton.
  I can understand Republican Senators opposing a bill that they do not 
agree with. We have differences all the time. But when they oppose 
bills for which they themselves have voted, it is obvious that the 
purpose is purely political, purely negative, purely obstruction, 
purely to prevent President Clinton from gaining any political benefit. 
And that is a very bad commentary.
  Now, Mr. President, let me address a couple of the other points 
raised earlier.
  Haiti. We have heard that debated here quite often in the last few 
days. And there is an almost incredible sadness on the part of our 
Republican colleagues that things have gone so well in Haiti. They are 
almost disappointed and feeling gloomy that things have gone so well in 
Haiti.
  Not a single American has been killed as a result of that mission. 
The illegal dictatorship is leaving office and the democratically 
elected Government is taking office.
  And yet, all we hear is nitpicking, second guessing, carping, 
crabbing, gloomy faces, all because it is going so well. That is 
another really sad commentary.
  We are told by our Republican colleagues that the President should 
have come to the Congress and gotten authority before he ordered this 
action. I agree with that. I think the President should have done so 
and I told him so.
  But the fact is that no President in my lifetime has agreed with me 
on that--no President, Democrat or Republican.
  When President Bush ordered the invasion of Panama without prior 
congressional approval, an operation in which more than 20 Americans 
were killed, Republican Senators did not complain. They cheered. They 
did not say the President should have come up here for authority. They 
said the President did not need authority. They did not second guess 
and nitpick, carp, and crab. They praised and cheered.
  When President Reagan ordered the invasion of Grenada without prior 
congressional approval, in which Americans were also killed, tragically 
and unfortunately, they did not say the President should have come up 
here and gotten authority. They said he did not need the authority. 
They did not nitpick, and second-guess, and carp, and crab. They 
cheered.
  And now, an operation is going well, and what is their reaction? A 
bunch of gloomy Guses, almost sad that things have gone so well. That 
is sad.
  Now, Mr. President, campaign finance reform. Once again the charge 
made is ``taxpayer financing,'' even though the bill was explicit that 
not one penny of general taxpayer funding was involuntarily. If a 
person wanted to voluntarily check off on his tax return that he wants 
the money to go into it, he or she can do so. If he does not, he does 
not contribute a penny to it. And yet the statement is made again and 
again--erroneously, mistakenly--``taxpayer financing.'' The record must 
be set straight. It is not.
  Health care. Over and over again, Mr. President, the allegation was 
made that the President's plan was for a Government-controlled health 
care system; too much government, we are told by our Republican 
colleagues over and over and over again, and, I must say and 
acknowledge, skillfully and successfully. But the allegation is false 
and deserves to be rebutted on two points.
  First the plans were not plans for the Government to take over the 
health care system. My bill, in fact, would have abolished one of the 
largest Government health care programs, acute care under Medicaid. And 
25 million Americans who are now covered under Medicaid would not have 
continued in their Government program, but would have been in the 
private health insurance market.
  So abolishing the second largest Government health program and having 
25 million Americans go in the private insurance market is not a 
Government takeover of the health insurance system, even though our 
Republican colleagues keep calling it that.
  But there is another even more personal response that ought to be 
made. Over and over again, they say, Government health insurance is bad 
for you Americans. You, Mr. and Mrs. America, Government health 
insurance is bad for you, and we Republicans are proud of the fact that 
we stopped those nasty Democrats from imposing Government health 
insurance on you, even as every single one of these Republican Senators 
is covered by a Government-organized health insurance plan for himself, 
herself, and their families, and the Government pays 72 percent of the 
premium cost of their health insurance plan.
  When a Republican Senator or a Democratic Senator gets sick, they 
walk right down the hall of the Capitol here to the Capitol physician's 
office, where a Government doctor treats them. And if they are really 
bad off and they need an operation, they go right out here to Bethesda, 
MD, to a Government hospital, where Government nurses take care of 
them, and Government doctors operate on them.
  So every American ought to ask himself: ``Hey, if this Government 
insurance and this Government health care is so bad for me, as these 
Republican Senators keep saying it is, how come they insist on having 
it for themselves and their families?''
  Mr. President, what we want to do is to see to it that every single 
American has access to the same kind of insurance and health care that 
every Member of this Senate has. That is the democratic way, with a 
small ``d.'' Why should people in this body have access to care of the 
quality and type and finance that other Americans do not have?
  So I ask all Americans to ask themselves that question as they ponder 
health care. Maybe they might even ask one of these Republican 
Senators, when they come to your town to give a speech against 
Government health care: ``Senator, if it is so bad for me, how come it 
is so good for you and your family?''
  The argument was made that our Republican colleagues favor 
portability of health insurance; that every person who moves from one 
place to another or moves from one job to another would keep his health 
insurance. So that you do not have the terrible situation you now have, 
where if people move from one State to another, or change jobs, they 
lose their health insurance. And every month, more than 100,000 
Americans lose their health insurance and large numbers of Americans 
are without health insurance for substantial periods of time.

  But, Mr. President, the only way you can have portability and 
complete transferability of insurance from one place to another is you 
have a standard policy. You have to have a standard benefits package, 
otherwise it is impossible to have portability. And our Republican 
colleagues are all against the standard benefits package. And I think 
that really is a metaphor for their approach on health care.
  They are for the objective, they are just against what it takes to 
get to the objective. So they can claim they are for these good things 
for Americans, even as they oppose the ways in which Americans will get 
them.
  Finally, I want to comment on the subject of obstructionism and 
filibusters. The statement was made that on 29 occasions I filed 
motions to end filibusters before the debate had begun. But let me say 
here now, I filed motions to end filibusters only after I was 
explicitly told--either by the Republican leader or some other 
Senator--that there would be a filibuster, and that a motion to end the 
filibuster would be necessary.
  I repeat that. Every single time such motions were filed, I had 
previously been told explicitly--by the Republican leader or some other 
Senator--that a filibuster would occur and a motion to end it would be 
necessary.
  Let us look at this question of filibusters. In the entire 19th 
century, a period of 100 years, in this U.S. Senate there were a total 
of 16 filibusters. That is about once every 6\1/2\ years. For most of 
this century, filibusters occurred in the Senate fewer than once a 
year--fewer than once a year.
  In this Congress alone in this Senate, motions to end filibusters 
were filed 72 times--72 times.
  That does not mean there were 72 filibusters because, as every 
Senator knows, we frequently have to file more than one motion on an 
issue when we are unsuccessful the first or the second or the third 
time, but it gives you some indication of what has occurred. And I 
think nothing better makes the point than, going into this, the final 
day of this session, we had before us in the Senate four filibusters. 
And on each one of them the motion to end it was filed only after I was 
explicitly told--in this case I insisted that it be right out here on 
the record--by Republican Senators that it would be necessary to do it.
  So I want to make clear my belief that there has been an 
unprecedented use of the filibuster and obstructionist tactics. It is 
true that if some Senator stays here long enough, he or she will 
participate in a filibuster. For most of us, it has been once or maybe 
twice in 10 or 15 years, somewhat consistent with the historical 
average. But when you have the number, the frequency of filibusters, 
even the subjects--here we had filibusters today on whether we are 
going to promote an Air Force colonel to be a general. And we had to 
file a motion to end the filibuster on that. And that was filed only 
after I was told publicly here and on the record it would be necessary, 
otherwise we would not be able to get to it.
  What once was reserved by common consent and restraint to issues that 
were of grave national importance and really were not partisan in any 
way, has become an everyday mechanism in the Senate. I regret that and 
I think Senators in the future are going to regret it. If this number 
keeps spiraling upward as it has in recent years, from once every 6\1/
2\ years in the last century to less than once a year early in this 
century to 20, then 30, then 40, now 70 times in a Congress, it is 
going to be extremely difficult for whoever is running the Senate--and 
someday that is going to be Republicans. I do not think it is going to 
be next year, but certainly we know that at some point in our history--
we do not know when--Republicans will be in control of the Senate 
again. When that happens I think they will regret the consequences of 
the actions taken during this session.
  Mr. President, as I said, I had intended only to make my prepared 
statement. I make these comments merely to respond to those points 
raised earlier and to do what I believe is necessary to have a balanced 
presentation on those issues.
  I want to conclude by repeating what I said, that in our society the 
reality is, whether we like it or not, that controversy and conflict 
are given prominence, and substantive accomplishment is ignored if it 
is not controversial or sensational. I think much of the controversy 
has been given a lot of attention and created the impression that there 
was not any action in this Congress when in fact there was plenty of it 
and plenty of it that will be beneficial for years to come. And I hope 
that with the benefit of time and perspective, Americans will come to 
realize that.
  Mr. President, I note the presence of my colleague from Arkansas on 
the floor. I accordingly yield the floor.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mathews). The Senator from Arkansas is 
recognized.

                          ____________________